WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs HAMINI

24CV011846: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs HAMINI 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for judgment on the pleadings is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED without leave to amend.

Plaintiff’s unopposed request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permissible for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

This is an action for breach of contract and common counts. Defendant Bizhan Hamini (“Defendant”) allegedly entered into a credit card agreement with Plaintiff. (Complaint, p. 3, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to make periodic payments as agreed. (Id., p. 3.) Defendant allegedly owes $7,438.73. (Ibid.) Plaintiff now seeks judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant and because the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to deem admissions admitted.

When the moving party is the plaintiff, there is only one ground for a motion for judgment on the pleadings: “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) The grounds for the motion shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Id. at § 438, subd. (d).)

The court properly takes judicial notice of the fact that defendant has admitted the allegations of the complaint. Indeed, the court will take judicial notice of records, such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer [or motion for judgment on the pleadings]. (Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co.

24CV011846: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs HAMINI 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 16C

(1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604- 605.)

Thus, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court may extend consideration to matters that are subject to judicial notice; in doing so, the Court performs essentially the same task as ruling on a general demurrer. (Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 146.) Additionally, the Court must disregard all controverted allegations in the complaint and accept all facts properly pleaded in the answer. (Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1379-1380.) “A motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a general demurrer, and the motion must be denied if the defendant’s pleadings raise a material issue or set up affirmative matter constituting a defense.” (MacIsaac v.

Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809, 812-813.) The Court assumes the truth of all material allegations in the challenged pleading no matter how improbable. (Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1397.)

Plaintiff argues that judgment on the pleadings is proper because Defendant has been deemed to have admitted, among other things, that: (1) Defendant had a credit card account with Plaintiff; (2) Plaintiff sent Defendant periodic statements requesting minimum payments; (3) as of June 14, 2024, there was a balance owing of at least $7,483.73; (4) Defendant has not paid Plaintiff since June 14, 2024; (5) Defendant owes Plaintiff at least $7,483.72; and (6) Defendant does not have any defenses. (RFJN, Ex. B.)

The effect of the deemed admitted order is that Defendant responded to the requests for admission by admitting the truth of the matters. (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) Thus, the admitted facts cannot be reasonably controverted and may be considered by the Court in ruling on this motion.

Based on the allegations in the pleadings and the above admissions, the Court finds Plaintiff has met the burden to demonstrate the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The Court has also reviewed Defendant’s answer and finds the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.

Finally, the Court notes that Defendant did not oppose the motion and does not explain how the answer could be amended to overcome the admitted facts and to state an affirmative defense. The Court construes Defendant’s failure to oppose the motion as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED without leave to amend.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011846: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs HAMINI 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 16C

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011846: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs HAMINI 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 16C

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.